I’ll be asking for callers to describe their relationships with the religion, what they believe it represents, and tie the discussion into the season as to the meaning of Christmas. I expect to get plenty of the obligatory “Christmas is a ripoff of paganism, yada, yada, yada…” but I intend to carry the discussion beyond the usual ranting. It’ll be my third show on the topic, and this one will focus on the substance and symbolism of Christmas itself.
Special invitation to those who are currently Christian. I’d like to integrate a little balance into this, so I would really appreciate a call or two from Christians. Don’t mind some of the anticipated wounded callers, I will assure civility and I won’t allow critical examination to degrade into bigotry. In the past I have hung up on callers who have pushed the issue.
And as a side thread, I’ll ask each caller if he or she has a favorite Christmas carol and why it is your favorite.
Yeah, I know. “Bah humbug!” Try not to be too much of an Angry McAngrypants.
189 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 16, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Anonymous
God rest ye merry gentlemen
let nothing you dismay
remember Christ your savior was born on Christmas day(not)
always wondered about that song and the total lie.
is christianity just lies?
December 16, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, if you take everything literally, maybe so. Of course, a line in a song is not necessarily formal dogma or doctrine. And do we know if the line was written by a Christian?
Some of the more famous Christmas songs were written by Jews, although the selection tends to be more secular than religious.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/10490
December 16, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Anonymous
It depends, which verson of the lie your talking about, ie Old lie, New lie, King James lie etc. I don;t know if you can call it a lie or just a never ending story.
December 16, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Eric Kirk
This one’s my favorite, but don’t watch it if you don’t like cute. You’ll probably be hearing about this kid soon enough anyway.
December 16, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Eric Kirk
This is closer to the version that moved me as a kid though. My family had been through some rough times. On the morning before Christmas when it was still dark out my father woke me up at like 5 in the morning. We were living in Montara (I think, or maybe it was earlier when we were in Linda Mar) and he had to take care of something about his sailboat in San Leandro. We drove there and it was still dark when we reached the San Mateo Bridge. He turned on the radio which he always had on to KKHI, a now defunct AM classical music station (even then it was probably long outdated as an AM station), and a version much like this came on.
I hadn’t seen much of my father because of work issues, and I had spent the prior year worrying about whether he would be in jail for violating an injunction against a wildcat strike he and my uncle had pretty much been leading. He didn’t need my help with anything at the boat. He just wanted my company.
Nothing sensational in the story, but we had a very good Christmas that year and when I hear this version it triggers the grace of the moment. We had some nice presents, but not all that much as we were kind of broke at the time. To the extent that Christmas represents a renewal of hope at the darkest moment, it resonated with me.
December 16, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Plain Jane
My favorites are “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus” because its cute, “The Little Drummer Boy,” because its about giving gifts with no monetary value, and “Oh Holy Night” because it is so beautiful (but really hard to sing well.)
December 16, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Anonymous
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/fCNvZqpa-7Q?fs=1&hl=en_US
December 16, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Eric Kirk
Some versions of Drummer Boy can be majestic. My other fav is Silent Night.
December 16, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Bolithio
Well I hate to perpetuate the war on Christmas, but since were talking about songs… Ill represent my generation, albeit a small niche…punk rock! All of my favorite xmas songs come off of the Vandals “Oi! to the World” album. They have been doing a Christmas show every year in the bay area for over 20 years now…
December 16, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Eric Kirk
anonymous 421 – that pretty much sums it up for me.
December 16, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Anonymous
The classical definition of religion is believing in something you know isn’t true.
December 16, 2010 at 5:43 pm
tra
I think it’s important to distinguish between “Christians,” most of whom are content to practice their own religion and let others practice theirs (or none), and “Christianists,” who seem to be preoccupied with whether Christianity can maintain dominance at home and abroad. The latter group contains those who insist that the U.S. is a “Christian nation,” that the separation of church and state is a mistake, that non-Christian Americans are not fully American (or indeed not fully human), that many or most Muslims support terrorism, that we are involved in a “Clash of Civilizations” with the Muslim world, etc.
Just as it is useful to draw a distinction between peaceful “Muslims” and extreme “Islamists,” it’s also useful to draw a distinction between your average American “Christian” and the right-wing, warmongering “Christianists” who all to often put themselves forward as the spokespeople for all Christians.
December 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Sally
@ Eric – re the little girl singing O Holy Night – it moves me much more than Susan Boyle
December 16, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Plain Jane
Thanks for sharing that, 4:21. I agree with Eric at 5:09.
December 16, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Bruce Ross
Heard this one on the radio the other day — can’t get it out of my head.
December 17, 2010 at 2:47 am
moviedad
Good show Eric. I thought your callers were all pretty sharp and respectful. I was tempted to call in, I was listening to it online at work. I think the Roman celebration co-opted by the X-tians you were thinking of was “Saturnalia” which was a big festival for them around the same time of the year.
December 17, 2010 at 8:36 am
Erasmus
A “classical” definition of religion is believing in something you know is not true? I’d like some references for this definition — I’ve never heard such an absurd one, and I’d like to think that “anonymous” is not blowing hot air.
December 17, 2010 at 12:16 pm
suzy blah blah
..religion is believing in something you know isn’t true.
That’s correct as far as the literal truth goes, but one who is able to think outside of the box, beyond the petty constraints of scientific facts and statistics, needs to learn how to suspend disbelief. Then religion and mythology become totally alive, negative sarcastic response is put in it’s place, and you are open to and receptive enough to learn certain inner non-literal truths that are deeper and more valuable to oneself than anything that mere factual information can ever provide.
December 17, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Plain Jane
Didn’t they discover a gene in religious people that enables them to suspend disbelief? As a kid I was jealous of people who believed because I couldn’t. Now I feel sorry for a lot of them leading sad and stunted lives to deserve an eternity in heaven and the self hatred engendered by falling short of the sacrifices required.
December 17, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Ernie's Place
“… think…beyond the petty constraints of scientific facts and statistics…”
That wouldn’t be me.
” As a kid I was jealous of people who believed because I couldn’t.”
That would be me.
December 17, 2010 at 1:37 pm
suzy blah blah
I feel sorry for those narrow minded people who are unable to experience the wholistic integration that suspended disbelief can engender and are thus doomed to leading mundane lives constrained within the rigid boundaries of accepting the reality of only “true facts”.
December 17, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Ernie's Place
Suzy, if you got to walk a day in my shoes, you might change your mind. You seem to have no idea how much fun reality can be.
December 17, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Eric Kirk
There was a famous exchange in the X-Men comic books I read as a kid. I don’t remember too much in detail, and I may not have it exactly right, but I think it’s pretty close. Wolverine walks into a room and sees Nightcrawler praying.
Nightcrawler: Logan, would you care to join me?
Wolverine: Not my cup of tea man. I don’t believe.
Nightcrawler: You have no faith in a transcendent being?
Wolverine: What you can touch. What you can see, hear, or smell. Those things concern me. The rest is imagination.
Nightcrawler: And you have no need for that?
Wolverine. No. None.
Nightcrawler: Then my friend, you are truly alone. How do you exist that way?
Wolverine: (puts arm around Nightcrawler’s shoulders) I ain’t alone bub. I got you.
December 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm
suzy blah blah
It is a impoverished soul indeed who is unable to suspend their disbelief while reading X-men comix.
December 17, 2010 at 2:06 pm
longwind
I’m with Suzy on this.
Confucius was born after thoughtful Chinese had given up on their Jehova-figure personal god, because too many calamities had flourished despite his prayed-for intervention. So Confucius codified morality, becoming an archetypal smug bureaucrat-figure. But when desperate or panicked, he still prayed to the God of the washer-women.
That’s the place to take despair, and hope. Reasoning about it misses the point.
December 17, 2010 at 2:12 pm
suzy blah blah
an impoverished.
Ernie, I love reality.
December 17, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Plain Jane
I think delusional is another way of defining the “ability” to suspend disbelief. Some of us are and some of us aren’t. Some of us spend hard earned money to buy drugs to achieve it, but the effects wear off with a little time.
December 17, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Ernie's Place
What I get out of all of this is that you heaven-and-netherworld people are quite content in your belief in unseen beings. I am quite content living in the real world. For some reason I see no conflict. We are all happy in who we are. I don’t want to take your bliss away.
December 17, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Plain Jane
Whatever floats your boat. Just don’t try to turn your beliefs into laws for those who don’t share them.
December 17, 2010 at 3:01 pm
suzy blah blah
Ernie, you may not be able see a conflict, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. Nor does it mean that someone is delusional when they can see something that you can’t.
December 17, 2010 at 3:02 pm
suzy blah blah
to see
December 17, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Not A Native
Heard the show’s archive and found there wasn’t much caller interest in your chosen topic. Thats a shame considering your best effort to use Christmas as a vehicle to find local enthusiasm for the version of cultural traditionalism you promote.
Despite your hopes, Christian traditionals just aren’t among KMUD listeners. That audience truly doesn’t share your nostalgic warm spot for the repressive cultures of their childhoods. Instead, irie reggae boogie rules. But a hint: you’ll find the local kindred spirits you seek among the listeners of KLVG and KEKA, They’re more your natural constituency and base of support.
December 17, 2010 at 3:20 pm
tra
“Whatever floats your boat. Just don’t try to turn your beliefs into laws for those who don’t share them.”
Exactly. That’s why I don’t really have any problem with normal Christians or Muslims, but do I have a lot of concerns about Christianists and Islamists.
December 17, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Ernie's Place
I totally get the tradition of Christmas. I will be helping Santa deliver Candy Canes to the children of Redway tomorrow. Even though the whole thing is based on a myth, it brings me great happiness to see happy little children and parents.
Some people question why I would be part of Santa Clause when I don’t believe in The Christian myths. Simple… passing out candy canes with my friends, and making people happy, is a scientifically proven reality for me.
December 17, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Plain Jane
People have been celebrating “Christmas” long before there were Jews or Christians (or Romans). People had festivals to pick up their spirits in winter, celebrate the rebirth and fertility of the earth in spring and the harvest in the fall. Dressing them in religious garb came later. New religions always co-opt earlier beliefs when the people won’t give them up.
December 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm
moviedad
One cannot argue with the fruits of the transcendent experience.
December 17, 2010 at 3:58 pm
suzy blah blah
Just don’t try to turn your beliefs into laws for those who don’t share them.
That goes both ways.
I have a lot of concerns about Christianists and Islamists..
Don’t forget the secular “ists” –communists, marxists, capitalists, etc. Collective systems that want you to believe in and submit to their ideal.
December 17, 2010 at 4:05 pm
suzy blah blah
audience truly doesn’t share your nostalgic warm spot for the repressive cultures of their childhoods.
LOL! –but I do. Suzy thinks it’s great that Eric heard O Holy Night in Italian on the San Mateo bridge when he was five years old and is still moved by having experienced that special music in that special setting of love and support. Merry Christmas Eric, er, I mean happy hollidaze.
December 17, 2010 at 4:26 pm
tra
Oh, I’m not forgetting the secular “ists” at all. But from a practical point of view, Communists and Marxists aren’t really a current threat to peace and freedom the way Christianists and Islamists are.
December 17, 2010 at 4:40 pm
moviedad
Holy-Dazed.
December 17, 2010 at 5:34 pm
suzy blah blah
tra, Any collective system that promises peace and freedom, or whatever ideal, is a threat to the individual.
Ernie, the Santa Clause story is not a part of the Christian myth. It’s a secular myth that runs concurrent with the birth of Jesus story at this time of year. There is a parallel theme in the birth of Jesus story with it’s three wise men bearing gifts. The way I see it, if you are practicing the giving (of candy canes etc), as portrayed in the Santa story, then you believe in the myth. Do you believe in it literally? Of course not.
December 17, 2010 at 5:46 pm
tra
“tra, Any collective system that promises peace and freedom, or whatever ideal, is a threat to the individual.”
Some are a lot more of a threat than others.
December 17, 2010 at 6:11 pm
suzy blah blah
It’s the concept of a collective belief system with it’s attendant morals and ideals that is a threat to the peace and freedom of the individual, not the costume it currently wears. Today it is one ism that is threatening, later it’ll be another.
December 17, 2010 at 7:16 pm
tra
Well I do think the “collective belief systems” of Christianists and Islamists are a whole lot more of a threat to peace and freedom than the collective belief system of the average secular humanist.
December 17, 2010 at 7:27 pm
tra
“Today it is one ism that is threatening, later it’ll be another.”
No doubt. And among today’s leading threats to peace and freedom are Christianists and Islamists.
December 17, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Unk John
Suzy – I think that Ernie is probably aware that the Santa Claus story was not originally part of the Christian myth. He may even be aware of a story I’ve heard that talks about the red and white color of the Jolly Fellow and a certain red and white mushroom in northern Europe that is “ripe for the pickin’ ” at this time of the year. It, of course, has hallucinogenic properties. That could explain a lot of the Santa story-talk about your “flying reindeer”.
Also, Suzy, even though I always find what you have to say to be more than simply interesting, I think that sometimes I will have to suspend my disbelief when I mull over some of your thoughts. Those belief systems of which you speak are theoretically not there for any reason other than to speak to the interactions among individuals.
Of course I am aware that those systems do, in fact, restrict the individual but most people agree that that is acceptable “within reasonable limits.” Now that is where the trouble starts. In that sense it is hard to disagree with tra. Most humanists are not willing to kill for an invisible man in the sky ’cause they ain’t got one. Fundamentalists really believe that they are in the right. They bother me that way.
December 17, 2010 at 10:28 pm
suzy blah blah
Well I do think the “collective belief systems” of Christianists and Islamists are a whole lot more of a threat to peace and freedom than the collective belief system of the average secular humanist.
Well then we’ll have to agree to disagree an that.
December 17, 2010 at 10:29 pm
suzy blah blah
on that
December 17, 2010 at 10:45 pm
tra
“Well then we’ll have to agree to disagree on that”
I’m fine with that.
It’s interesting to note that this very willingness to agree to disagree, to live and let live, is conspicuously absent in the authoritarian worldviews of Christianists and Islamists (and, as you correctly noted, in some of the other totalitarian “isms.”)
December 18, 2010 at 7:41 am
Mitch
I’m sorry I missed the show, and perhaps I’ll get a chance to listen to the archives. My recollection is that Aldous Huxley wrote an introduction to the Bhagavad Gita which discusses the universal religion. Basically, his universal religion took the values that remain in common between all the world’s religions, and then tossed out the specifics of each religion’s mythology. He came up with stuff like love, tolerance, kindness, compassion, putting others first, etc…
That’s the stuff I believe in (if not always practice successfully).
But throughout world history, hierarchies have arisen that insist on belief in a particular mythology, together with additional rules that, for whatever reasons, seem to support the hierarchy and create agita for some disfavored populations. That’s the stuff that I think is total bullshit. Just because it’s always attached to the true stuff doesn’t mean it has any truth in it.
I’ve been fascinated by how in The Gnostic Gospels there is much less claim that Jesus is particularly God, as opposed to a stellar example of how we are all God. It’s a very Buddhist-sounding approach that doesn’t sell well when you are trying to tell people that they have to do as you say or face eternal damnation. Thus it ends up suppressed and buried in jars for millennia.
I believe in God, as long as God is simply “love, tolerance, kindness and compassion.” The moment it is turned into a particular being who supports one team against another and exhorts his followers to destroy the neighboring cities or fund televangelists, I know God is one big fairy tale.
December 18, 2010 at 7:51 am
Plain Jane
Huxley’s “Perennial Philosophy,” Mitch. An excellent source which identified what the great religions of the world have in common.
“You know man created god when it hates the same people you do.”
Anonymous
December 18, 2010 at 8:06 am
Erasmus
For what it’s worth: I have been very critical (usually in silence) of comments made by Plain Jane, Mitch, and Suzy in the past. I am heartened by the tone and most of the content of their recent posts on this thread. Huxley’s book is well worth reading (as is his collection “Huxley and God”), as is “The Gnostic Gospels.” Suzy seems to understand what religion is all about, when its absurd fundamentalist accretions have been removed. Happy Holidays, and keep up the good thinking.
December 18, 2010 at 8:42 am
moviedad
Call me a believer, because I believe that there is more to nature/reality, than we can see, touch or feel. It’s like a bunch of Ants arguing about whether there is more to the universe/garden than the anthill. Some ants have seen the gardener, and they do their best to convince others that there is more to the anthill than meets the antenna.
But it is a personal, individual experience. It’s not something you can find through reasoning, or even based on the testimony of trustworthy people. No one believes in ghosts, unless they have actually experienced something that others call “ghost”
The gurus all say “you waste your breath talking about loving god, when you hate your brother.” Or Jesus “I tell you about Earthly/Humanist things, and you don’t understand; so why do you ask me to tell you about Heavenly things.”
The more the physicists explore “Dark Matter” and inter-dimensional planes, the more room there is for possibilities beyond our present understanding.
In the meantime, throw another Heretic on the barbee, its cold in here.
December 18, 2010 at 8:43 am
Mitch
Thanks, PJ. In Anne Lamott’s version:
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. “
December 18, 2010 at 8:48 am
moviedad
Hi Eric, what’s the deal with the Gravatars? yours is the only site that doesn’t seem to support global-avatars. c’mon man, who knows what kind of Masonic/Knight-Templar symbolism is contained within these seemingly innocent avatars.
December 18, 2010 at 10:53 am
Bolithio
Good discussion. The way I see it, the further you get from the root culture of the religion, the more confused it gets. For instance many of the dogmas religions hold on to once had very relevant reasons that benefited the culture. Kosher is much less meaningful in a refrigerated world and our understanding of science has made many practices of the past obsolete. The rationalization for some of these dogmas appear to stretch thinner and thinner as our culture evolves.
We have to be near the point where culturally we will need to adapt to new dogmas that are relevant to our current world. It sort of feels like we are stuck in this place now where old habits are dieing hard. Our political system is a good example and many of the things congress does are totally outdated. Out political institution mirrors a religion in this regard. The “Founding Fathers” are the creators, the decoration of independence and the constitution are the old and new testaments, and so on. As always in history, changing the old ways is sacrilegious and has a hard time coming about without significant catastrophe.
December 18, 2010 at 11:50 am
Plain Jane
“Call me a believer, because I believe that there is more to nature/reality, than we can see, touch or feel.”
Of course there is. That’s why they invented microscopes. Our reality is defined by the design of our eyes. If we had insect or microscope eyes our reality would look quite different.
December 18, 2010 at 11:57 am
Mitch
Well, thanks, Erasmus.
December 18, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Mitch
moviedad,
I’m convinced the next revolution in scientific understanding has been taking place before our eyes for the past two decades, and will be common sense in a generation or two, having the same status as Darwinism. And that’s that not only are we not the center of the universe, or created by God in his image… we as our conscious selves aren’t even painting a real objective story from what our senses tell us, but simply coming up with satisfying stories about what’s happening to us and in us. Nothing new to novelists or philosophers, I suppose, but absolutely fascinating as science. It starts with the stuff about illusions taught in Psych 101, but it’s been getting more and more advanced as brain science evolves.
December 18, 2010 at 1:31 pm
anon
enough!
what else you got e?
December 18, 2010 at 1:55 pm
tra
Holy crap…they actually got it done. Looks like the end is in sight for the idiotic policy known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/senate-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell.php?ref=fpa
The actual change of policy won’t happen overnight, but at least now the President has the authority to end the policy and if there’s any stalling, well then the buck will stop with him.
December 18, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Erasmus
A very provocative comment, Mitch. People seem unable to live without a pretense that their “truth” is objective, and mere sensory knowledge is meaningless without a context — a narrative– in which to embed it. You mention Darwinism and imply that it has a status unchallengeable as to its basic truth. Here is where I differ from you. The “origin of species” has never been explained, in spite of the title of Darwin’s book and the efforts of scientists since 1859. The origin of life on earth itself is so improbable that its genesis in interstellar space has often been hypothesized. The number of philosophers and scientists who find Darwinism unsatisfactory is far greater than most people realize, and these thinkers are not “creationists,” a breed of lazy and gullible anti-intellectuals. “Billions of years” is a mantra to explain the astonishing complexity and diversity of life, and “chance” is advanced as the agent, along with natural selection, even though the latter is mere common sense (known by breeders for thousands of years) and is unable to account for its own mechanism (the DNA molecule and its intricate digital language). — The doubts about Darwinism have been voiced by thinkers as progressive as Chomsky and Wittgenstein. Few school board members are aware of them, as the tedious battles between “mainstream” science and “creationists” play themselves out.
December 18, 2010 at 3:52 pm
moviedad
Buddha-Poop?
December 18, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Ben Schill
Back in the 60s, I was at a flying saucer convention out in the desert. We were talking to an old boy from Arizona who had written a book about being abducted by space travelers. To his delight, they turned out to be beautiful naked women who lived on a planet in Earth’s orbit just opposite the sun so that we can’t see it. My friends and I all had beards and the space traveler paused and asked if we belonged to an organization. One guy quickly said “KLAU’ “What do you study?” the traveler asked and my friend said, “Reality”. “Ah”, said the author, “So do I.”
December 18, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Ben Schill
P.S…. I’ve always loved “Oh Holy Night.”
December 21, 2010 at 9:09 am
moviedad
Can’t we apply the theory of evolution to the incubation of the human consciousness? I am a catholic, because as a child I was exposed to catholic art and ritual. My co-worker is from Pakistan and is a Muslim. He did not convert to Islam because he reasoned out that it was the only truth; he was exposed to its ritual and dogma as a child and internalized it.
I think that the transcendent experience, the human epiphany, is a lot like taking acid; whatever is in your sub-conscious is projected outward. All the “Wisdom” writings I have studied say that only a pure heart can survive contact with the “Heavenly Beings.” So let’s say we are all “God-Larval” still in the egg, so to speak. Then we have the power of creation. If we have evil thoughts, say murder, greed then our projections will contain those things and most likely cause insanity. Like religious wars and crusades.
Jesus said it over and over that we are just like him, all we have to do is wake up. I am God, so are you. I do not speak for the Catholic church, but it seems to me that no one really reads what the enlightened actually say. I’ve read lots of commentaries on the X-tian scriptures from Baptist (ala Moody) to “Zionist” and they go through a lot of logical acrobatics to put forth the idea that we are sheep, all from teachers using the shepherd/teacher analogy.
Now in a world where war and violence is glorified, getting believers to call themselves sheep, is certain to bring in violence as a component to religious identity. Just a thought.
December 21, 2010 at 9:28 am
Mitch
“I do not speak for the Catholic church”
Exactly, moviedad. The idea that you are god is blasphemy to the hierarchy.
December 21, 2010 at 9:36 am
Mitch
Erasmus,
Sorry about this delayed reply, but I did not see your earlier comment.
There are now computer simulations showing the evolution of the eye, given mild simulated selection pressure.
There are increasingly detailed DNA histories enabling scientists to accurately date the separation point between various species’ ancestors.
Those who disagree with evolution generally disagree with small details of the theory, not the overarching framework. And, as I expect you realize, pushing the origin of life on Earth out to the stars merely changes the question to how life originated “out there.”
While I respect the intelligence of Chomsky and Wittgenstein, I’m not sure why they should be considered experts on Darwinian evolution, when there are thousands of scientists who have devoted large portions of their lives to familiarizing them with a century’s worth of research findings in preparation for doing their own research.
Yes, I’m no expert but I’m aware of problems with speciation. That doesn’t mean Darwinian evolution isn’t as close to fact as science comes.
December 21, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, one of the core issues evolutionary theory has to resolve is how actual speciation occurs. Nobody can deny that organisms adapt through generations, but you can do this without chromosome differentiation or specifically a change in the chromosome number. So how does one species actually move from one number to the other? When Christine O’Donnell asked why she had never seen a monkey evolve into a human being, she was obviously jumbling something she had heard at a conference somewhere, but lacked the stuff to articulate it.
The DNA mapping would certainly seem to end the debate as to whether speciation has occurred, but we do not really understand how the jumps happen nor how the new line survives.
Of course, evolution does not necessarily negate creation theory (unless literally Biblical), nor the concept of intelligent design. And it doesn’t explain all, any more than it explains the existence of anything to point to the Big Bang. It’s a mechanism, but where did the Big Bang come from? What caused it? Atheists sometimes sound a little complacent in pointing to the Big Bang as explanation, when we still don’t really understand what it was.
December 21, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Mitch
Yes, Eric, saying things started with the Big Bang is not a complete answer.
But many people acknowledge that science leads back to the big bang (or whatever), but has nothing to say about what preceded it. To me at least, that’s not the same thing as saying God created everything.
The difference is that one explanation leads back to a situation of reduced complexity, while the other does not.
To explain that God created everything is to force the question of what created God — an omniscient, conscious being. Creating God would be pretty hard.
To suggest that things “originated” with the big bang is to say the evidence leads back to that moment, and to acknowledge that everything prior to that moment is simply unknowable.
December 21, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Anonymous
It should be noted that a revised steady state theory involving multiple bangs is in vogue.
December 21, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Mitch
Well that clarifies everything.
December 22, 2010 at 8:44 am
Erasmus
Yes, the “experts” are loath to express whatever doubts they may have. Evolution has become a rallying-point in various cultural wars. To be clear: only ignoramuses doubt the fact of evolution. Many well-read thinkers — and even some evolutionary scientists — find the “descent with modification” explanation less than satisfying. If you don’t find my statements ridiculous, there are some sources you might find interesting. Arthur Koestler’s book “Janus” has a chapter on evolution that summarizes his doubts. A book recommended by Jacques Barzun — Norman Macbeths’ “Darwin Retried” — goes much too far but has some thought-provoking passages. The final chapter of Loren Eiseley’s “All the Strange Hours” (a memoir) expresses the great writer’s misgivings about the science that underlay his career. In France, scientists seem more influenced by Lamarck and less worshipful of Darwin. Pierre Grasse taught evolution at the Sorbonne for decades and was unafraid of pointing to neo-Darwinism’s shortcomings. Of course, even Alfred Russel Wallace ditched “Darwinism” when dealing with the human mind. — Much to ponder here.
December 22, 2010 at 9:31 am
Erasmus
I have to add one more comment, and that is in praise of Eric Kirk, his blog, and his astonishing fair-mindedness. His remark on evolution printed above is unusual in its sobriety, its understanding of the core issue involved, and open-minded to a degree that is sadly rare in today’s intellectual climate. If more progressives adopted his mentality, we wouldn’t see so many Tea Parties taking place, and our president would be more successful.
December 22, 2010 at 11:28 am
Eric Kirk
Thank you for the compliments Erasmus. I think where most people who subscribe to evolutionary theory are confused by atheists and agnostics who question the theory because essentially the only alternative to the broad theory is magic, either in the form of divine creation or the old theory of spontaneous regeneration. If the first is true, you don’t need the science. You already have the answer because it transcends science. And the second theory has a few more holes in it than evolutionary theory. Moreover, if our understanding of DNA is at all valid, then we have essentially mapped speciation even if we don’t understand the mechanism.
But we don’t know the mechanism. We have theories within the theory. And science demands proof through the elimination of variables. Nobody, not even the most ardent of evolutionary theorists, refers to the the “law of evolution.” It is theory. We have Newton’s laws of gravity. Keppler’s laws of planetary motion. We have Darwyn’s theory of evolution (and incidentally, Einsteins theory, not law, of relativity – despite the practical applications). That there are no materialistic or even logical alternative theories is not scientific proof. In science, a lot of work goes into ascertaining a very little bit of truth.
December 22, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Eric Kirk
A recent discovery just complicated current understanding of human origins.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/22/931027/-New-Evidence-of-Previously-Unknown-Human-Ancestor-
December 23, 2010 at 12:03 am
tra
“To explain that God created everything is to force the question of what created God — an omniscient, conscious being. Creating God would be pretty hard. ”
Just remember: It’s turtles all the way down.
December 23, 2010 at 8:24 am
Erasmus
Actually, the “turtles” reply is barely more credible than “matter all the way down,” given that the universe is finite and that therefore something must exist beyond it — and what would that be? — Someday science will catch up with William Blake: “Only mental events are real.” Of course, science will have to learn what “mind” is before it attempts an answer. Prying into the brain will not provide one, though it will satisfy our curiosity on a number of levels. —– Physicists are way ahead of biologists on this issue. Paul Davies co-wrote a book called “The Matter Myth.” Richard Dawkins should read it.
December 23, 2010 at 8:58 am
Mitch
For anyone curious about tra’s comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
December 23, 2010 at 12:50 pm
suzy blah blah
— Someday science will catch up with William Blake
There are many ways to gain truth. Reason and logic are not the only way to be right.
December 23, 2010 at 1:13 pm
tra
Thanks, Mitch, for posting the Wikipedia link, which lists several differrent versions of the “turtles all the way down” story. Among them was this one:
In the book Small Gods, the question “what does the turtle stand on?” is asked, and gets the reply “It’s a turtle, for heaven’s sake. It swims. That’s what turtles are for.”
In religion, the swimming turtle is the Creator, whereas in science, the swimming turtle is the Big Bang.
December 23, 2010 at 1:17 pm
tra
“Reason and logic are not the only way to be right.”
Of course not. But for most practical purposes, they’re the most reliable way to be right. Certainly way ahead of dogma or wishful thinking.
December 23, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Eric Kirk
And I thought it was a reference to Dr. Seus’ Yertle the Turtle. Yertle tried to play God by stacking up all the turtles, and well, I won’t spoil it.
December 23, 2010 at 1:50 pm
tra
Another analogy that has been employed by philosophers is that of a string of railroad cars. It’s all well and good to say that each car is pulled by the car in front of it, but there’s still the question of what’s pulling the first car. The idea being that somewhere along the line there needs to be some kind of locomotive in the form of a Creator, or at least a Creative Event (like the Big Bang.)
But perhaps there isn’t really any locomotive, and there isn’t really any swimming turtle. It could be that the Big Bang was created by the collapse of a previous universe which itself was created by a previous Big Bang, and so on down the line into infinity. Or if you prefer, the Creator was created by a previous Creator who was created by a previous Creator and so on down the line.
In other words, it may really be “turtles all the way down.” Or around and around?
December 23, 2010 at 2:51 pm
suzy blah blah
tra, My reply was to what Erasmus said about science being far behind Blake. And what I was referencing is the kind of mental activity that reason and logic cannot grasp. It has nothing to do with wishful thinking or dogma, it has everything to do with direct experience, with reality.
December 23, 2010 at 3:06 pm
tra
Perhaps you could give an example?
December 23, 2010 at 4:21 pm
suzy blah blah
Every grain of sand ….. were you ever passionate about anything? –did you ever fall in love? Was it logical? Reasonable? Was it real? How do you choose your friends? Do you base your life on what’s reasonable? Or is there another kind of decision making going on that reason is a servant of?
December 23, 2010 at 4:34 pm
suzy blah blah
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
December 23, 2010 at 5:26 pm
tra
Suzy,
Thanks. That was eloquent and it gives me a clearer picture of what you’re getting at.
In my view, there’s certainly an important place for emotion and intuition in making certain decisions, and you named some good ones like choosing friends, falling in love, etc. (I suppose one could say that it’s only logical and reasonable to make those kinds of personal decisions based largely on emotion and intuition…heh-heh.)
But in other areas, say for example deciding whether human activity is contributing to dangerous climate change, or whether the theory of evolution is correct, or for that matter whether a certain dimension of I-beam will support a certain load, well, I wouldn’t want to see emotion or intuition or “faith” playing any major role in making those kinds of decisions.
I suspect we would probably agree more than we would disagree as to which questions call for more reason and logic and which questions call for more intuition, emotion or faith.
Merry Mythmas,
tra
December 23, 2010 at 5:27 pm
tra
Suzy,
Thanks. That was eloquent and it gives me a clearer picture of what you’re getting at.
In my view, there’s certainly an important place for emotion and intuition in making certain decisions, and you named some good ones like choosing friends, falling in love, etc. (I suppose one could say that it’s only logical and reasonable to make those kinds of personal decisions based largely on emotion and intuition…heh-heh.)
But in other areas, say for example deciding whether human activity is contributing to dangerous climate change, or whether the theory of evolution is correct, or for that matter whether a certain dimension of I-beam will support a certain load, well, I wouldn’t want to see emotion or intuition or “faith” playing any major role in making those kinds of decisions.
I suspect we would probably agree more than we would disagree as to which questions call for more reason and logic and which questions call for more intuition, emotion or faith.
Merry Mythmas,
tra
December 23, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Eric Kirk
William Blake was a bad-ass! Here’s a clip from the third best western ever made.
December 23, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Anonymous
Stupid fucking white man!
December 23, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Anonymous
Hey wait…what movie was that?
December 23, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Eric Kirk
Dead Man. Jim Jarmusch, who also did Stranger than Paradise, Coffee and Cigarettes, and Ghost Dog – all excellent movies.
December 24, 2010 at 2:36 am
Mitch
I’ve always been confused by those who feel that science destroys the sacred (not that I’m saying anyone here is saying that). My experience has always been that science contributes to my sense of awe about the universe. The evolution of animals that love one another, are in awe of the giant redwoods, and can create creation stories strikes me as far more awe-inspiring than the creation stories could ever be.
I was fortunate enough to have had a high school Chemistry teacher — thank you Mrs. Friedenreich — who, together with a fantastic curriculum, taught that there are hundreds of observations you can make about a burning candle. It was as close as I’ve come to an enlightenment experience. And math… for anyone who pays serious attention to the concepts of pi, e, irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, chaos theory, non-Euclidean geometries, the world simply becomes a more fascinating place.
December 24, 2010 at 10:05 am
moviedad
“I do not speak for the Catholic church”
“Exactly, moviedad. The idea that you are god is blasphemy to the hierarchy.”
That’s not how I read it. I can’t tell you how many lectures/sermon/homilies I’ve heard on the subject, and you’re right to say that if I call myself “God” it would offend many Catholics, but if I say that according to the gospel message, I am as much God, as X-tians believe the Christ to be, Though not yet fully developed, then I am in league with the fathers of the church.
What is creativity, what is imagination? It’s the ability to make real what did not exist before. Yeah, maybe it’s just the rearrangement of materials already available in nature; but what about later when the consciousness of the human mind is the only thing left of the human? Ah,yes; this part requires a little more imagination/faith.
Also, way, way up thread; It was said that “Faith is believing in something you know is not true.” that is a complete fallacy. What theologians like to say, is that “Faith is believing, when you have no ‘physical evidence’ (paraphrase) to prove it.” In my humble opinion, to be certain that something beyond the five senses does ‘not’ exist because because you have not experienced it; is a lot more insane than believing ‘Something’ exists because you have had an experience that ‘proves’ it enough to satisfy your objective criticism that there is more to it.
Now if we want to talk about who gets to interpret the experience, we are in a whole other ballpark.
To believe that we are little “Gods on the hoof,” is very offensive to those who use organized religion to control the masses, and keep them looking up at the man with his back to altar. That part I get.
December 24, 2010 at 10:17 am
suzy blah blah
… are in awe of the giant redwoods,
-so much in awe that they destroyed 95% of them.
December 24, 2010 at 10:42 am
Mitch
Well, suzy, as the religious might say, “it’s a mystery.”
December 24, 2010 at 11:03 am
suzy blah blah
Mitch, it’s no mystery, without modern science and its stepchild modern technology, your sacred redwoods wouldn’t have been destroyed.
December 24, 2010 at 11:35 am
Mitch
So you blame science for the destruction of the redwoods?
I guess that’s fair, scientific knowledge as forbidden fruit throwing us out of the garden.
But in fairness, you’d have to acknowledge that the earth probably wouldn’t be able to support more than 1/10 of its current load of people without what science has enabled. That means you’d have the redwoods, but only a 10% chance of existing yourself.
December 24, 2010 at 12:30 pm
suzy blah blah
Mitch, i can see its no use to argue with your steadfast faith in modern science. If you want to believe that it will save the earth from over-population, i can’t necessarily disagree, a nuclear war or disaster might change all of the statistics we have to analyze.
December 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Mitch
Honestly, suzy, I’m not sure we disagree that much, and I think you disapprove of my “position” far more than I disapprove of yours.
It may be that we define “modern science” differently. Science is both an intellectual joy and a pathway to power. Power is abused, regularly. But IMO, when it’s not science that’s being abused, it’s people’s gullibility instead, via shamans of various kinds asserting they’re in direct communication with god, and that I’d better do what god says (via them, of course) if I expect a happy afterlife.
I prefer science.
December 24, 2010 at 3:19 pm
suzy blah blah
I prefer science.
yes, we know.
December 24, 2010 at 6:21 pm
tra
“Test all things and hold fast to that which is good”
1 Thessalonians 5:21
December 25, 2010 at 10:59 am
Happy Birthday JC
And even to this day, does the church recognize “science” from outside the bible? Could you imagine how many people died while preferring “science” over the teachings of their church? “Science” threatens the word of god, thus the church and their control. So for someone to truly believe the word of god and the church, should they “prefer science”? I mean that’s why there is a heaven and hell, to put butts in seats and keep them there, not to think about where we came or where we go when we die or why the sky is blue or is the world square? And there is nothing wrong with that for some people, its when your church or your god crosses the line and punishes people for there own belief. Our founding fathers knew this, separating church and state. Belief is power and “science” questions that power. Look at “Christ-mas”, this is the corporations day set aside for his birth? A Hallmark moment in time to spend, spend, spend and give, give, give. How long has Wall Street been forecasting the fate of people from the sales of Christ-mas? Is this a belief in a higher power or “science”?
Merry what ever and whom ever you want…………
December 25, 2010 at 7:35 pm
suzy blah blah
tra, lame scripture from the NT doesn’t make direct experience of the Creator any less valid.
December 25, 2010 at 7:37 pm
suzy blah blah
tra, lame scripture from the NT doesn’t make direct experience of the Creator any less valid.
December 25, 2010 at 9:10 pm
tra
Jeez, lighten up.
December 26, 2010 at 9:35 am
Ernie's Place
“A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.” Pope John Paul II
December 26, 2010 at 10:00 am
suzy blah blah
“Test all things and hold fast to that which is good”
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Are you being sarcastic? This is bullshit.
December 26, 2010 at 10:01 am
Mitch
JP’s right, Ernie.
And here’s an example of an observation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
December 26, 2010 at 10:20 am
tra
Yes, Suzy, “Test all things and hold fast to that which is good” was offered with tongue in cheek.
That chip on your shoulder must get awfully heavy; I hope it doesn’t cause back problems for you.
December 26, 2010 at 10:41 am
suzy blah blah
Tra, I’m sorry for you that all you can do is make non-humorous, lightweight and meaningless reply’s to serious subject matter, and that you have no ability to add any insight about topics such as science’s attack on God. And that even though can’t grasp anything heavier than a feather, and you have nothing important to say, you get manage to get defensive and attack a commenter like me with the type of rubbish that one might expect out of a church pastor or science teacher. But that’s not my problem, I’ll just skip over your one-sided self-righteous comments from now on. Underneath your pretense of reason it’s all agenda led by emotional baggage. We have nothing in common and you have nothing to say to me.
December 26, 2010 at 11:54 am
tra
“We have nothing in common and you have nothing to say to me.”
Wow. Your spirituality sure has led you to an enlightened attitude.
December 26, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Mitch
Hey tra, be of good cheer.
Matthew 7:16: By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
December 26, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Ernie's Place
John Paul was steeped in science, yet never lost his faith in God. I think that he once said that “Evolution is a fact, but the basic blocks of the universe and the soul of man were provided by God.” That was the closest that I have ever come to being swayed by the church. It was inspiring to me to see a basically religious person being, also, guided by science.
However, my faith is in science and reality. I don’t believe in the power of prayer other than the power that comes from self hypnosis, just as numerous scientific studies have revealed.
Unlike many others, I find myself fascinated with Suzy’s power of reason, but she would be mistaken to think that I would take the subject of God’s existence lightly. Once that his existence has been scientifically proven, I shall be counted amongst the most ardent of believers.
December 26, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Mitch
And suzy, “science” is incapable of making an attack on God, as it explicitly deals with the behavior of the material world and has, by definition, nothing to say about the super-material.
That leaves each of us free to choose our faith or lack of it.
The only thing believers in science might attack are theories that appear to contradict observed reality — anyone who wants to continue to hold those theories and be taken seriously has to agree that their theory is untestable, and accept the consequences in terms of its universal believability.
I like the George Carlin routine posted near the top of the thread, where he (accurately, as far as I know) explains what dogmatic Christians believe.
December 26, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Mitch
Ernie,
The Daiai Lama is also fascinated by science, he has held many meetings with neurobiologists and cognitive scientists, and he has invited monks to participate in brain imaging studies while meditating.
December 26, 2010 at 12:16 pm
tra
Thanks, Mitch,
Despite my penchant for making non-humourous, lightweight and meaningless replies, my inability to add any insight on topics or grasp anything heavier than a feather, and my defensiveness, not to mention the way I attack with rubbish like a pastor or science teacher with my agenda-driven, one-sided self-righteousness under a pretense of reason led by emotional baggage, somehow I remain in very good cheer this fine day.
It’s a miracle!
December 26, 2010 at 12:22 pm
suzy blah blah
“science” … explicitly deals with the behavior of the material world and has, by definition, nothing to say about the super-material.
It’s a sick one sided view of reality. And your own ignorance stems from your following and faith in this schizophrenic and dangerously unbalanced viewpoint.
December 26, 2010 at 12:24 pm
suzy blah blah
tra is living proof that ignorance is bliss.
December 26, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Mitch
Well, suzy, we disagree. But I still think that our disagreement is really over definitions more than anything else.
I’m confident that tra and myself are roughly as capable of feeling awe and love as the typical believer. We even hear the same inner voices, and struggle with what we call our consciences. I can’t speak for tra, but I even believe in good and bad.
But I don’t believe any particular hierarchy has ownership of spiritual truth, and I don’t think I have more access to it than any of my neighbors. People who think they have a special “hotline to god” are welcome to spread their beliefs, whether they label them Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, Mormon, Scientologist, Satanist, or other, but I’ll stick with those who are a bit more humble.
December 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Eric Kirk
you get manage to get defensive and attack a commenter like me with the type of rubbish that one might expect out of a church pastor or science teacher.
You had a mean science teacher Suzy? None of mine were mean. I did have a mean shop teacher. My high school biology teacher was a young woman who looked very much like Mindy of Mork and Mindy fame. She never had a harsh word for anyone and she stamped dolphins onto our tests when we did well, seals when we just passed, and red sharks when we didn’t do so well.
I did have a physics professor in college who deliberately rescheduled a midterm for a scheduled rally for UC divestment from South Africa, and threatened to fail anyone who didn’t show up for it.
December 26, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Mitch
You know, Eric, looking back I don’t think I had a teacher I could call “mean” until I went to college. (I had a few who were mediocre and, of course, everyone has bad days.)
And even in college, I can only think of one teacher who “had it in” for me or others — mostly, everyone teaching bent over backwards, and the only meanness seemed to be in some of the students.
Says a lot about people who become teachers, I guess.
December 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm
tra
“We have nothing in common and you have nothing to say to me.”
A perfect illustration of a closed mind. Suzy knows The Truth because she directly experiences The Creator, Suzy proclaims The Truth, end of story.
Like I said, a real enlightened attitude.
December 26, 2010 at 1:02 pm
suzy blah blah
Mitch, good luck struggling with all that moldy brainwash that you call your conscience.
December 26, 2010 at 1:06 pm
suzy blah blah
tra’s Strawman. I never proclaimed any direct experience of anything.
December 26, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Eric Kirk
I had a mean teacher in the 6th grade. Her name was Mrs. Duran, but we all called her “Mrs. Durangatang.” She would pound her yardstick on her desk when she was made, and she sometimes broke it.
We all had a petition going to complain about the lunch food. Most teachers would smile about it and encourage civic participation. But when she saw it being passed around her class, she read it and said, “this so-called petition carries no weight” and she tore it up. I got sent to the office when I asked her if the light bulb had been invented when she was a kid.
December 26, 2010 at 1:12 pm
suzy blah blah
Suzy knows The Truth because she directly experiences The Creator, Suzy proclaims The Truth,
tra’s, strawman, i never said any of that.
December 26, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Mitch
suzy,
Thanks. You have a nice day.
December 26, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Mitch
Catholic school, Eric? Mine were public: PS 220, PS 139, Forest Hills High.
December 26, 2010 at 1:30 pm
suzy blah blah
Eric, I’m homeschooled. I only went to an official school for one semester in my life. Elementary school. The teacher was nice. But I preferred homeschooling. I learned more, but there weren’t many kids in the neighborhood and so I was shy and socially awkward into my teens.
December 26, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Eric Kirk
Cunha Intermediate in Half Moon Bay. Public.
December 26, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Mitch
I’m curious whether suzy’s belief system varies much from that of the parent who conducted her homeschooling. I’d ask her, but I’m afraid she’d shout.
December 26, 2010 at 1:59 pm
suzy blah blah
I honor Mitch’s curiosity. I think it’s a good topic to investigate. But how’s a good little scientist to start?
December 26, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Mitch
I guess she’d have to find someone who was likely to respond with information.
December 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm
tra
“I never proclaimed any direct experience of anything.”
Suzy, you typed the words “lame scripture from the NT doesn’t make direct experience of the Creator any less valid.”
I see that you don’t like the way I’ve summed up your point of view. If you don’t want people to perceive you as intolerant and close-minded, with a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, you might want to avoid such dead giveaways as ““We have nothing in common and you have nothing to say to me.”
December 26, 2010 at 2:48 pm
suzy blah blah
chip on your shoulder
-and some inorganic dip on my hip –no thanks;
try walking in someone else’ shoes
We went to the sauna bath place on solstice eclipse night to clean out the toxins, the moldy brainwash type guk, and on the way out I stole a pair of some snobby trustafarian’s plastic Nikes. LOL!
Now they’re making my feet sweat. Is that some kinda cleansing of the sole?
December 26, 2010 at 3:21 pm
tra
“…on the way out I stole a pair of some snobby trustafarian’s plastic Nikes. LOL! Now they’re making my feet sweat. Is that some kinda cleansing of the sole?”
Uh-oh… I hope you didn’t catch some kind of foot fungus from those plastic Nikes.
If you did, one interpretation would be that you caught the fungus as a result of Karma or some other kind of metaphysical reward-and-punishment system. Basically the idea being that if you did get a nasty bit of foot fungus, not only would this serve you right for stealing someone’s shoes, but, lucky for those of us who don’t steal shoes, it so happens that there is a supernatural force in operation to ensure that you are punished for your transgression.
A non-spiritual interpretation would be that over millions of years foot fungus has evolved spores that are easy to transfer, even between “snobby trustafarians” and someone as spiritually enlightened as you, thus securing the continuation of this strain of foot fungus. So, from an evolutionary point of view, it’s nothing personal.
December 26, 2010 at 3:46 pm
suzy blah blah
spiritually enlightened –yadda yadda
i never claimed to be enlightened, it’s just another of the dip’s fantasy strawmen to kick around so he can act superior and condescend. what is it anyway? Enlightenment? no don’t answer, i could care less. some buddhist dogma or some shit i guess.
December 26, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Eric Kirk
I haven’t really followed this argument from the beginning, and it’s hard to tell exactly what you three are arguing about.
December 26, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Mitch
Nike and fungus, best I can tell.
December 26, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Plain Jane
I read it all and am very confused about what it is exactly that Suzy believes. My impression is that she believes god can be experienced personally, but she hasn’t experienced it personally so is just accepting the word of others, “lame scripture from the NT” and “Buddhist dogma or some shit,” her disdain for the Golden Rule (what all the great religions and most atheists believe is the foundation of morality and / or civilization) as demonstrated by her “bragging” about stealing someone’s shoes makes her belief system seem a bit cultish.
December 26, 2010 at 4:41 pm
tra
“it’s hard to tell exactly what you three are arguing about.”
Oh I stopped arguing when I was told “We have nothing in common and you have nothing to say to me.” From that point forward, I’m just having a bit of fun.
But back up further in the thread, Suzy and I had a nice exchange that at least reached this point:
In my view, there’s certainly an important place for emotion and intuition in making certain decisions, and you named some good ones like choosing friends, falling in love, etc. (I suppose one could say that it’s only logical and reasonable to make those kinds of personal decisions based largely on emotion and intuition…heh-heh.)
But in other areas, say for example deciding whether human activity is contributing to dangerous climate change, or whether the theory of evolution is correct, or for that matter whether a certain dimension of I-beam will support a certain load, well, I wouldn’t want to see emotion or intuition or “faith” playing any major role in making those kinds of decisions.
I suspect we would probably agree more than we would disagree as to which questions call for more reason and logic and which questions call for more intuition, emotion or faith.
Or maybe not.
December 26, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Eric Kirk
The best argument for the existence of God and intelligent design is the existence of garlic. And rosemary.
December 26, 2010 at 6:07 pm
tra
As always seems to be the case with such matters, opinions vary:
“Garlic has been regarded as a force for both good and evil. According to Cassell’s Dictionary of Superstitions, there is an Islamic myth that considers that after Satan left the Garden of Eden, garlic arose in his left footprint and onion in the right.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garlic#Spiritual_and_religious_perceptions
Personally, I’ve always experienced garlic as more heavenly than hellish!
December 27, 2010 at 9:28 am
suzy blah blah
-let she who has never been a member of any cult cast the first pearl to be trod under my Nikes.
December 27, 2010 at 9:40 am
Plain Jane
I’ve never belonged to any cult, but would rather cast pearls before swine than before a cultist thief.
December 27, 2010 at 9:44 am
Eric Kirk
What exactly is a cult? Generally speaking it’s any group with a strong belief system not shared by the person defining.
December 27, 2010 at 9:57 am
suzy blah blah
jane, too bad all you have to cast is rocks.
December 27, 2010 at 9:57 am
Plain Jane
By cultist I mean a person who believes in a quasi religion far outside the mainstream, often with a living charismatic leader, and would certainly include any that eschew the Golden Rule.
December 27, 2010 at 10:00 am
Eric Kirk
Some Protestant fundamentalists believe that the Catholic Church, the largest Christian organization in the world, is a cult.
http://www.reachingcatholics.org/cult-cult.html
December 27, 2010 at 10:11 am
Plain Jane
Religions compete with each other for “souls,” all claim to be the one true religion of “god,” and bash each other as false. However, their differences are really minute compared to the beliefs they share and they ALL share the Golden Rule. I just hope Suzy had enough decency to leave her flip flops for the “trustafarian” to wear home on the cold solstice night. That a person so lacking in morals would have the gall to lecture anyone on spirituality just makes me boil.
December 27, 2010 at 10:20 am
Plain Jane
I should have used the word “empathy” in place of “morals.” Even nonhuman species demonstrate empathy.
December 27, 2010 at 11:07 am
tra
What’s amusing is the smug satisfaction with which she reports her little shoe theft, as if she has just done the universe a real solid by liberating the plastic footware from the undeserving “trustafarian.”
December 27, 2010 at 11:15 am
suzy blah blah
Jane, you can rattle on all you want about your belief in empathy, but Suzy has the direct experience of walking in the trustafarian’s shoes.
December 27, 2010 at 11:29 am
Plain Jane
Judging the “trustafarian” as snobby (other than reserved or shy) to justify her theft and condemning the snob to go home barefoot on a cold, wet night and then making jokes (hopefully) about walking in stolen shoes being somehow superior to empathy.
December 27, 2010 at 11:43 am
suzy blah blah
I see what you mean, now Suzy’s concerned, I wonder if there was a good working heater in the snob’s beemer that night, poor dear.
December 27, 2010 at 11:46 am
tra
I’m familiar with the expression that goes something along the lines of “you shouldn’t judge a person until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.”
But Suzy’s approach is much more pro-active: Go ahead and judge them, and if you judge them to be a snobby trustafarian with the right shoe size, then go ahead and steal their shoes and walk a mile in them.
Then there’s this variant of the old saying:
“Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, you’re a mile away, and you have his shoes.”
December 27, 2010 at 11:46 am
suzy blah blah
Judging the “trustafarian” as snobby (other than reserved or shy) to justify her theft and condemning the snob to go home barefoot on a cold, wet night and then making jokes (hopefully) about walking in stolen shoes being somehow superior to empathy.
If you try hard maybe you can end the sentence for us.
December 27, 2010 at 11:49 am
tra
New Rule:
It’s perfectly OK to steal items of clothing from someone as long as the victim has a working heater in their car.
December 27, 2010 at 11:49 am
Mitch
“Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, you’re a mile away, and you have his shoes.”
Excellent self-help instruction, tra. Thanks! (Is it a quote?)
December 27, 2010 at 11:53 am
Eric Kirk
Religions compete with each other for “souls,” all claim to be the one true religion of “god,” and bash each other as false. However, their differences are really minute compared to the beliefs they share and they ALL share the Golden Rule.
True enough, but the Catholic Church did ease up on this through the Second Vatican where they proclaimed that members of Protestant faiths, other religions, and even an occasional atheist might find their way to Heaven. Couldn’t avoid Purgatory obviously, but as they say, any safe landing is a good landing.
December 27, 2010 at 12:08 pm
tra
“Excellent self-help instruction, tra. Thanks! (Is it a quote?)”
I’m not sure who came up with that one, but it wasn’t me.
December 27, 2010 at 12:10 pm
suzy blah blah
– before you judge someone’s dreadlocks, drive a mile in their beemer.
December 27, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Plain Jane
That she wore dreadlocks and drove a BMW makes all the difference, Suzy. I’ll bet you could justify any thing.
December 27, 2010 at 12:55 pm
suzy blah blah
Do you want me to draw up some new golden ideals for you to worship?
December 27, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Mitch
PJ,
Pearls before swine, etc…
I recognize the attitude because I’ve had it myself. One of the strangest things about being human is that we know (some of) what’s going on inside us, but all we see of others are their exterior presentations. I think as we get older, if we’re lucky, we begin to realize how utterly useless it is to stereotype people without really knowing them, and by that I mean experiencing them over a long period of time.
Sure, beemers are sometimes a predictor of something — perhaps of the fashion impression someone wants to put out, for whatever reason — but to judge someone based on car and/or hairstyle, or on blog postings… just not a perfect approach.
But it’s necessary for many of us to go through periods of intense disrespect of others to prop up our own self-images. I’m in a very glass house, so I can’t complain too harshly about that particular behavior. I just hope suzy is under 30.
December 27, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Plain Jane
No thanks, Suzy. The Golden Rule has stood the test of time as a universal code for humane behavior. We don’t need more pseudo religious rules to justify our bad behavior toward others.
December 27, 2010 at 1:53 pm
suzy blah blah
okay, I called up the sauna place and talked to the chick there. I asked her if anyone was missing any pink Nikes around the 21st. She said yes someone was. I told her I’d accidentally put them in my purse and took them home by mistake. I said I’d bring them back when I was in town next. She thanked me effusively for being such a honest person. It made me feel a little odd.
December 27, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Mitch
And people say blogs are worthless!
Thanks, suzy.
December 27, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Plain Jane
Sweet!
December 27, 2010 at 3:04 pm
suzy blah blah
I called back to ask when they are open and their hours, and I got the owner. He told me I could have a free sauna for being such a conscientious citizen!
It’s a bummer that the plastic Nikes make my feet sweat but now that the shoe’s on the other foot, heh heh, my karma is improving marvelously –or is that too spiritual for y’all.
December 27, 2010 at 3:11 pm
tra
“…my karma is improving marvelously…”
Yes, lying about your theft and thereby receiving benefits under false pretenses should do wonder for your karma.
Enjoy!
December 27, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Mitch
Well, tra, the thing is, nothing’s perfect. But somebody can get their shoes back, two people at the sauna can feel that there’s someone out there willing to make the effort to return shoes for whatever reason, and if the owner left identifying information, the owner can get their shoes back. That may prevent the owner from hitting their cat, so it’s a definite plus for the cat, any way you look at it.
December 27, 2010 at 3:23 pm
tra
And that may prevent the cat from torturing a turtle, who in turn may be kinder to other turtles and…from there it’s turtles all the way down.
December 27, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Mitch
Exactly and approximately.
December 27, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Eric Kirk
I took the shoes!
December 29, 2010 at 11:25 am
suzy blah blah
I took the shoes back yesterday. I dropped off my car to have a stereosystem installed and having a couple of hours to kill I hitchhiked over to the sauna baths. A handsome guy was their sweeping up and I told him I was returning the Nikes. It turns out he was the owner, it surprised me, he sounded older on the phone. He gave me a card for two free saunas. Then noticing how wet I’d gotten hitchhiking with the shoes, he offered me a ride back to the stereo place. We hit it off pretty well and had a good conversation during the ride. He told me he’s from the Seattle area and that they found three times as many right shoes as left washed up on the beach up there. I told him that once I stole some shoes from the mall when I was younger. He laughed. But I didn’t tell him that I stole the Nikes –I wonder what he’d think. Then right before I got out of the car he asked me for a date … Maybe I’ll confess to him this weekend LOL!
December 29, 2010 at 11:31 am
Religion in Action
You’re a good writer, suzy. If nothing else, this will be great material.
December 29, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Eric Kirk
I should get the date because I stole the shoes!
December 29, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Mitch
Well, the cat’s happy, the turtles are happy, and therefore the universe is stable for the moment. suzy gets a date, and a T-S write-up of Eric’s blog’s success at shoe return becomes a heartwarming story on NPR. All’s well that ends well.
December 29, 2010 at 1:36 pm
suzy blah blah
Mitch, superficial observations often have little to do with a real life’s journey. Cats don’t like water, turtles don’t hitchike. But Suzy agrees with the “its all good part” xox.
December 29, 2010 at 1:37 pm
suzy blah blah
Mitch, superficial mythological observations often have little to do with a real life’s journey. Cats don’t like water, turtles don’t hitchike. But Suzy agrees with the “its all good part” xox.
December 29, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Eric Kirk
Whoa! Deja Vu!
December 29, 2010 at 3:44 pm
suzy blah blah
sorry eric, you can delete the first one.
January 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm
suzy blah blah
Wow! what a totally intense NYE. I met my date at the sauna place early, about 5pm, and we took his car to a party place. It was bout an hours drive and it gave me a good chance to check him out. He seemed like a really friendly and loving guy. When we got there they had some mushrooms and some of them took them and he ate some too. I declined. Taking a psychodelic trip with a bunch of strangers is not Suzy’s cup of tea. But they were nice people. They had a lot of good food and good herb and live music. I danced a lot and my date played guitar for a while. It was a lot of fun. But even before midnight people started leaving and others crashed out in the corners. My date and I decided to go. He said he’d like to take me home and show me his house except his mother was there for the holidays … But he said we could hang out at the sauna baths and I could sleep there if I wanted to. Then around midnight, right before we left, I ate some mushrooms. I figured I’d be good and stoned when I got in the sauna.
It was a long drive. I was starting to feel the shrooms a bit. My stomach was rolling over and I was a little anxious. I was thinking that it was kinda like that feeling you get when you are slowly climbing to the top of the first big hill in a roller coaster. Then I started hearing the clinking of the roller coaster clink clank clink, wtf? Actually, it was his car. Something was wrong with it. He said maybe it needed oil, it would be okay. But the clinking sound got worse. CLUNK, CLUNK, I thought the transmission was gonna fall out or something. It sounded serious. He said not to worry, but he looked kinda worried himself. I was getting pretty high and starting to freak out a little. It kept clunking, specially when we’d go up a hill. I’m thinking, oh great, we’ll probably get stuck somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Or maybe we’ll crash and die!
I held on. He drove real slow, clunk, clunk, clunk … Finally we pulled into the sauna bath house and the car konked out just as we did. whew! I got out and stood on the ground. It felt so incredibly good to be back on solid earth. It got me really really high to touch down, I felt “grounded”, lol! The anxiety was gone, I felt fanfuckingtastic!. We walked over to the bathhouse and he fumbled for his keys. Then when he unlocked the door –the alarm went off! Aaarrrrrrrnnnnnnggghhh … It was horrible sounding. He scurried around for a long time trying, but he couldn’t get it to stop. It seemed to ring forever. I was thinking is the sound of hell? Finally he did stop it. Then the police drove up with their lights flashing. I don’t know what they said, they sounded like they were talking a strange language that I’d never heard before. I just kept looking at their blue collars, they were neon blue and glowing like some special effect out of Avatar or something. He explained to them that he owned the place and it was an accident etc. Finally they left. We wished them Happy New Year.
When we were alone he cranked up the sauna. I got in and he’d said he’d join me soon but he needed to do something to the car. I was really tripping now. I sweated and sweated, it poured out of me like a dam had broken. A lot of visions came. I saw a figure appear in front of me in a glowing light. It looked like the horned god except his horns were antlers. I asked him questions and he gave me much much knowledge, something I’ll go into at another time. Finally dude came in. He didn’t stay long though, he said he wanted to lay down. I might have freaked him a little with my talking to beings he couldn’t see etc.
I purified myself really really good. Sweating and rinsing off and sweating some more. I did this several times and felt I was washed clean of all my past sins etc. All negativity was cleansed from my soul. I was told that those who judge me and accuse me are seven times more sinful than I and that they are not forgiven for their accusations. I was told that they are servants of The Accuser, the evil one, the devil, whatever name he may go by.
After a while I came down and I went and found dude laying on top of a foldout bed. A dvd was on but he was asleep. I tried watching it for a while, Alice and Wonderland with Johnny Depp. But it was horribly boring. I went to turn it off and I knocked something off the table and he woke up. I said I was sorry if I woke him. He said, no that’s cool. He said he felt rested and refreshed.
He rolled a joint and we had some laughs. I was thinking, maybe I really like this guy, he has a good sense of humor. Then it came to me that if I really wanted to be cleansed I should tell him about steeling the Nikes. However he took it I knew it’d make me feel better. He just laughed. We both laughed. He said he’d left a message for the owner on her answering machine but hadn’t heard back yet. Then he went and found them, he said he wanted to see how I looked wearing them. I put them on a paraded them for him. It was soooooo funny, you had to be there. Both of us were holding our stomachs from laughter.
Then we started making out a little. We were making out pretty heavy when someone started knocking at the front door and yelling. I looked at the clock and it was 6:30am. Dude said it was some friend of his that was at the party and he’d promised to lend some money to today. We tried ignoring it but he kept hammering the door and yelling, hey hey man, hey are you there? your car’s here. etc. Finally dude got up. He could see by the look on my face I was bummed. He said he’d get rid of him.
He walked into the other room and opened the door —Aaaarrrrnnnngggghh … the fucking alarm went off again, wtf? That was the last straw for me. I got up and put on my coat. At the front door he was trying to turn off the alarm and arguing with the other dude at the same time. I told him, “bye”. And I walked to my car and got in and left. Then I felt guilty for being so curt. He was a nice guy, I decided to circle round the block and be more civil and polite about it. On the way back I could hear the alarm from two blocks away. And when I drove to the place the cops were there. I just kept going.
When I got home the house was cold, I didn’t make a fire, I just wrapped up in a blanket and sat on the couch watching the room get brighter and not thinking about anything. I felt peaceful and new-born. I had left the past behind. I was free … then I looked down at my feet. Oh shit! I’m still wearing the fucking prodigal pink Nikes. I stared at them, they seemed to be looking back at me.
January 1, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Erasmus
An appreciative reader —- me, that is. Thanks, blissful New Year, and keep on sharing your soul.
January 2, 2011 at 10:55 am
suzy blah blah
Thank you Erasmus:
Hear the voice of the Bard!
Who Present, Past, & Future, sees;
Whose ears have heard
The Holy Word
That walk’d among the ancient trees,”
William Blake